DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The Specification at [0002] - [0004] sets forth a technical problem faced by prior systems…"conventional ride sharing systems often determine and provide inaccurate location information in response to transportation requests" which can result in determined pickup locations that are improperly placed or even impossible to navigate (e.g., on tops of buildings or road medians). Indeed, the Specification delineates that conventional systems "inaccurately estimate or determine where transportation events will occur, especially for transportation requests involving street intersections." While Applicant specification describes a problem, this is not a technical problem. In other words, it is not a problem rooted in computer technology. What Applicant describes is a business problem.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an improvement over existing technologies. The Examiner disagrees. The improvement that Applicant describes is seen from the use of additional elements/computer/existing technology and not an actual improvement to the additional elements/computer/existing technology. For example Applicant’s claims recite, “generating, utilizing the intersection-location machine learning model,” and “determining, by the one or more servers utilizing an intersection-location machine learning model to process the historical device data…” As demonstrated in the recited claim language, it is by the use of the machine learning model and servers that an improvement is realized. Much like the remaining additional elements, the model and servers are being used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant refers to the “Squires Memo” as a basis for eligibility. The Examiner maintains that Applicant’s claims are not the types of claims being referenced in the memo. Applicant’s claims continue to recite an abstract idea where the additional elements are being used as tools to implement the recited abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
generating, an intersection data object comprising global positioning system (GPS) data defining boundaries for a street intersection;
generating historical device data indicating device acceleration
determining that a location is within a threshold distance of the street intersection by processing the GPS data of the intersection;
based on determining that the location is within the threshold distance of the street intersection:
identifying, a plurality of candidate designated locations at the street intersection; and
retrieving, historical device data indicating device acceleration determined from
moving through the street intersection;
determining, from the historical device data, a plurality of intersection-location attributes for the plurality of candidate designated locations based on the acceleration of the historical device data;
generating wrong turn likelihoods for the plurality of candidate designated locations by generating predictions from the plurality of intersection-location attributes movement and location through the street intersection as determined;
determining, from the wrong turn likelihoods, a set of cancelation likelihoods corresponding to respective candidate designated locations at the street intersection;
selecting, from among the plurality of candidate designated locations and according to the set of cancelation likelihoods, a designated location for the street intersection; and
providing, for display, a designated-location indicator marking the designated location within a map.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of: (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “server database, intersection data object, client device, one or more servers, GPS sensors of devices, historical device, encoded computer data, devices, client device, inertial measurement units, digital map, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, computing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements server database, intersection data object, client device, one or more servers, GPS sensors of devices, historical device, encoded computer data, devices, client device, inertial measurement units, digital map, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, computing device. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (server database, intersection data object, client device, one or more servers, GPS sensors of devices, historical device, inertial measurement units, encoded computer data, devices, client device, digital map, non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, computing device)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component;
MPEP 2106 Step 2B-
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While Claim 2 describe intersection-location attributes vector, varied neural networks, Claim 5-machine learning model; Claims 5, transportation vehicles; GPS sensors, inertial measurement units; Claim 7 describes a client device, transportation vehicle; Claim 11-servers; Claim 13 describes transportation vehicles; Claim 16 describes a client device, transportation vehicles; Claim 17 describes a machine learning model, transportation vehicles, processor; Claim 18 describes transportation vehicles, requesters, computing resources and servers; Claim 19 describes transportation vehicles, requester; Claim 20 describes transportation vehicles, requester; Claim 21 describes a machine learning model and database, but these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights